potentially misleading and show you what immediately tipped me off.
The big clue when looking at graphs is to know the vertical and horizontal axis.
Vertical axis is “percent of gun sales” and there IS NO horizontal axis! WOA!
The .jpg file I inserted
is a graph and it
has is a horizontal axis. It's called a bar graph. Instead of numbers and a line graph, it uses color-coded bars with the colors clearly labeled by year. I'm sorry you can't understand a bar graph.
using his color code method, we can just reassign the colors and “show” the graph rising!
No, you can't. Not unless you change the years assigned to each color (at the bottom of the graph). Otherwise, you would be falsifying data.
Is percent of sales the same as relevance?
No, it's not. I never claimed it is. It is, however, one objective fact we can weigh on the relevance issue. If revolvers got down to say 0.5% of pistol/handgun
manufactured, one could make a more forceful argument revolvers were irrelevant, even if the actual number of revolvers
manufactured had increased.
Then, because Jim’s post is legit (unless he fudged the data) we can look at how many revolvers were sold.
You then say total revolver sales have increased, but that is only partially true. The data in the table shows total revolvers
manufactured went up in some years and down in others, depending upon the years compared. But that's also true of total pistol/revolvers manufactured, so that his why I compared revolvers manufactured to the total pistol/revolver manufacturing data. I think it is a better, though imperfect, reflection of interest in revolvers.
And please, don't intimate I might have fudged data. I mentioned in my post I had obtained the numbers on guns
manufactured (not sales) from the ATF and I used all the data available on their website. You can find it yourself at
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics.